3 ms·

> why can't SF be more like BCN? 1. Earthquakes. 2. City planning policies over the years (or lack thereof).

by cies 10y ago

ohwello 10y ago
We know how to safe six-story buildings in SF are a solved prblem, and developers have no problem following building codes when zoning allows them to build 6 stories.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  The problem is that most of the inhabitable stuff in SF is being rented out at >$2500 per studio in those old Victorian homes, and it's not exactly easy to just evict everyone for a few years to build higher density housing. A lot of stuff is also under rent control, and since no new buildings are under RC (and all the new construction I've seen is explicitly luxury), tearing old things down to build means tearing down "affordable" (relatively) housing to build luxury junk. It'd sure be nice to be able to clear a few blocks at a time and start over with fresh buildings, but it's more a matter of changing wheels on a bus while it's full of people driving down the street.
  - ohwello 10y ago
    These issues can be addressed, but in any case they don't seem related to restrictions that limit construction to a certain number of stories.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
intopieces 10y ago
>1. Earthquakes. And yet Tokyo exists.
- saryant 10y ago
  I was in Tokyo during Fukushima in a recently-built building. Felt like nothing more than a freight truck passing by.
Apes 10y ago
San Francisco really doesn't have Earthquake safe housing. It's been over 100 years (1906) since the last major earthquake (7.0+), which ended up destroying most of the city. A large portion of the housing in San Francisco dates to that era. However, rather than learn from the mistakes made pre-1906, San Francisco just rebuilt things exactly the way they were before. Look how much damage the 1989 earthquake caused, and that was a sub 7.0 earthquake. Another major earthquake would result in similar devastation to the 1906 earthquake. The best part is the NIMBYs who refuse to allow earthquake deathtraps to be destroyed for more modern buildings. They've become so complacent and ignorant to the reality of a major earthquake, that they feel the character of the city is more important than the lives of the people in it.

> why can't SF be more like BCN? 1. Earthquakes. 2. City planning policies over the years (or lack thereof).

by cies 10y ago

> why can't SF be more like BCN? 1. Earthquakes. 2. City planning policies over the years (or lack thereof).

We know how to safe six-story buildings in SF are a solved prblem, and developers have no problem following building codes when zoning allows them to build 6 stories.

seanp2k2 10y ago
The problem is that most of the inhabitable stuff in SF is being rented out at >$2500 per studio in those old Victorian homes, and it's not exactly easy to just evict everyone for a few years to build higher density housing. A lot of stuff is also under rent control, and since no new buildings are under RC (and all the new construction I've seen is explicitly luxury), tearing old things down to build means tearing down "affordable" (relatively) housing to build luxury junk. It'd sure be nice to be able to clear a few blocks at a time and start over with fresh buildings, but it's more a matter of changing wheels on a bus while it's full of people driving down the street.
- ohwello 10y ago
  These issues can be addressed, but in any case they don't seem related to restrictions that limit construction to a certain number of stories.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

intopieces 10y ago

>1. Earthquakes. And yet Tokyo exists.

saryant 10y ago
I was in Tokyo during Fukushima in a recently-built building. Felt like nothing more than a freight truck passing by.

Apes 10y ago

San Francisco really doesn't have Earthquake safe housing. It's been over 100 years (1906) since the last major earthquake (7.0+), which ended up destroying most of the city. A large portion of the housing in San Francisco dates to that era. However, rather than learn from the mistakes made pre-1906, San Francisco just rebuilt things exactly the way they were before. Look how much damage the 1989 earthquake caused, and that was a sub 7.0 earthquake. Another major earthquake would result in similar devastation to the 1906 earthquake. The best part is the NIMBYs who refuse to allow earthquake deathtraps to be destroyed for more modern buildings. They've become so complacent and ignorant to the reality of a major earthquake, that they feel the character of the city is more important than the lives of the people in it.